People v. Holt

Decision Date13 February 1974
Docket NumberNo. 59448,59448
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Harvey HOLT, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Bernard Carey, State's Atty. Cook County, for plaintiff-appellant; Kenneth L. Gillis, Mary Ellen Dienes, Chicago, of counsel.

Lawrence E. Kennon, Chicago, for defendant-appellee.

STAMOS, Justice.

Defendant, Harvey Holt, was charged with attempt rape, armed robbery, and aggravated battery. The trial court sustained defendant's motion to suppress certain items of physical evidence, namely, a revolver and a pair of trousers. The State, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604 (a)(1), appeals only that part of the order regarding the trousers. Although no brief has been filed by defendant, the practice of this court has been to consider the merits of such appeals. * (People v. Caruso, 2 Ill.App.3d 80, 276 N.E.2d 112.) At the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress, the following evidence, relevant to the issue on appeal, was presented:

At approximately 6:30 A.M. on October 24, 1971, Josephine Peek was the victim of an armed robbery, aggravated battery, and attempt rape. The attack was observed and interrupted by a neighbor who endeavored to capture the assailant. In fleeing, the assailant slipped and fell on a muddy patch of ground. The neighbor was unable to apprehend the assailant, but he did retrieve and turn over to police an address book and a knife from where the assailant fell in the mud.

After learning that the address book belonged to Harvey Holt, Police Investigator Storck and other officers went to Holt's apartment at 12:00 noon on the same day the offense was committed. According to Officer Storck, the defendant admitted the officers into his apartment, and after inquiry, stated that the address book belonged to him. Holt was arrested and immediately thereafter, the officer, from where he was standing, saw a pair of trousers on the bed in the adjacent bedroom; he noticed that the arrestee was dressed only in underwear and was not wearing trousers. Storck testified that as he observed the trousers on the bed, he recalled that the assailant had fallen into mud while escaping, and that the victim had received wounds causing her to bleed. However, it was not until Storck walked into the bedroom, that he actually saw bloodstains and mud on the trousers.

Defendant denied that the trousers were on the bed, but gave conflicting testimony as to their exact location. On direct examination, defendant said the trousers were on a chair behind the bedroom door that could be seen only be opening the door all the way and looking behind it. On cross-examination, he testified that anyone entering the bedroom could see the trousers on top of the chair. His testimony did indicate, however, that one standing in the officer's position at the time of the arrest could see part of the bed, albeit not the entire bedroom.

After argument and the submission of memoranda, the trial court held that the seizure of the trousers was unlawful, basing its ruling on Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685, which held that a search of a dwelling incident to arrest must be limited to the area within the immediate control of the arrestee at the time of the arrest.

On appeal, the state argues that the trial court erred in applying the rule of Chimel to evidence which was in plain and open view at the time of defendant's arrest.

The trial court based its ruling on the well-known permissible exceptions to, and limitations of, a warrantless search incident to a valid arrest. (Chimel v. California, Supra.) However, an equally well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement is that police officers may lawfully seize articles in plain view which, due to the surrounding circumstances, they reasonably believe constitute evidence of criminal activity. (Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067; People v. Sprovieri, 43 Ill.2d 223, 252 N.E.2d 531; People v. McCracken, 30 Ill.2d 425, 197 N.E.2d 35; People v. Caruso, Supra.) Although the 'plain view' exception to the warrant requirement is often-times intimately linked to the search-incident-to-arrest exception, the doctrine of plain view is not in conflict with the law of search incident to a valid arrest as expressed in Chimel. Consequently, an arresting officer may seize evidence within a dwelling that inadvertently comes into plain view, even though outside of the area under the immediate control of the arrestee. (Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 465--466, n. 24...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • People v. Mendoza, 77-1247.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 13 Julio 1978
    ......( Harris v. United States (1968), 390 U.S. 234, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067, 88 S.Ct. 992; People v. Holt (1974), 18 Ill. App.3d 10, 309 N.E.2d 376.) Here the officers viewed the items only after they were inside the apartment. Therefore a prerequisite ......
  • People v. De La Fuente, 78-449
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 7 Enero 1981
    ......United States (1949), 338 U.S. 160, (69 S.Ct. 1302, 1310, 93 L.Ed. 1879)." People v. Holt (1st Dist. 1974), 18 Ill.App.3d 10, 309 N.E.2d 376. .         The decisive issue, then, is whether the officer had probable cause to ......
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 13 Octubre 1987
    ...was dressed in fresh clothing at the time of his arrest, it was proper for officers to seize pants atop clothes hamper); People v. Holt, 18 Ill.App.3d 10, 309 N.E.2d 376 (1974) (wherein the court held that, during arrest of defendant for recent armed robbery where assailant was known to hav......
  • People v. Montgomery, 78-1318
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 27 Mayo 1980
    ...... (Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra at 465-66, n. 24, 91 S.Ct. at 2037-2038; People v. Holt (1st Dist. 1974), 18 Ill.App.3d 10, 12, 309 N.E.2d 376.) However, this seizure is proper only when three conditions are met: (1) the object seized ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT